Religion and women.

Of course. I don't think the passage is negating that - it's showing how men and women should sacrifice in a relationship. A lot of sacrifice going on in the faith, river. lol

Joking aside, Jesus being the ultimate sacrifice, that serves as the foundation for other teachings, in the NT.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As I know . Painfully .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think perhaps take a break for a minute, have a drink, get over your tantrum and return to the discussion once you have calmed down? Your insults aren't even making sense any more.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You didn’t.
Your objection to this quote I made in p 82...
“Man naturally heads over his wife and family, and his wife naturally understands that as she now has a child to develop. It is better if the man provides for his family, so that his wife can be a full time mother, for the sake of the child, and the structure in which the child is to develop.

Again you didn’t post it, but you objected to it, saying my posts were dripping with misogyny.
Now you say that you think God may have planned it that way.
This is why I’m asking you to be more specific on what makes my comments so hateful.
If you find my comments misogynistic, then you should find the Bible misogynistic, and God the biggest misogynist ever.
So bearing in mind I have posted the mans commitment to such relationships, to Alex, what is the difference between what I say, and what agree with in the Bible?

I get that you have this conclusion .
What I don’t get, is the specifics of how you came to this conclusion. You post blocks of quotes, and say I’m a misogynist, but I don’t know why you think that. You seem reluctant to actually discuss that. Why is that?

*smh*
Okay wegs.
I’ll make one more post to you

 

First thing you need to realise is that James comprehends absolutely nothing about God.
That is the case with most atheist. Some will try, by reading scriptures, but they only muster an intellectual account, which for all intent and purposes are no different to the atheist that have no comprehension.
He has been desperate for years wanting me to tell him what my religion is.
But I won’t, unless I partake in a thread called something like “what is you specific religion.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Nothing should have to be personal in a discussion forum.
So he makes up what he thinks it is.
I would ask if you have seen that not only from James, but the other atheists in this thread.
Bilvon has locked down to a fine art

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Unfortunately you are no different in that department, and you have shown that in this thread.

“A bit”

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Are you trying to appease dogmatic atheists?

You don’t need it, you’re doing well all by yourself. The tactic is to stick to your own paraphrasing of your opponent then proceed to believe that is what is being talked about.

That’s exclusively what I am speaking about.
Do you accept or not, the order?
Simple yes or no type question wegs.
If you do. Why do you label me “misogynist?

Of course it does.
But that has nothing to do with the order, and how it was ordained by God. I speak to loads of Christians, and they don’t really comprehend who and what God is, they only repeat dogmatic doctrines they have been taught. Hence like atheists, they become incapable of reason. They go into attack mode, rather than explain why it is wrong.
They find themselves as Christians for various reasons. In some cases they become better people, in some cases they become worse.
But it doesn’t mean they believe in God to the extent they would like to believe. Many of them depart from the religion because they find that it restricts them from expressing their desires freely.
The difference between an atheist and a theist is that the theist, because he accepts God, can comprehend the reason for such restrictions, and can more easily progress to becoming free of negative desires.
The drunken Christian who abuses is wife, uses anything at his disposal to justify his actions. Not that he believes in God. Because if he believed in God, he would be embarrassed at his own actions, and not seek to undermine God’s order.

So rather than talk about the complicated issues of religion, and it’s affects. I am concentrating on the biblical text. If you do that, I’m sure you will realise that rapists and murderers use the Bible as an excuse only when it suits them. They may point to various passages, much like the atheists here, and take the passages out of context, summarise it in their own design, then proceed to act as though their summaries are what is written. Therefore it becomes permissible.
You see that here all the time, atheist justify their attacks by taking verses out of context.
God condones slavery, rape, and murder
You believe in God
You condone slavery, rape, and murder.
No need to accept what you say about God.
This way they can arrogantly progress to the next stage which is usually something like the Bible is evil, or it is good in some parts, and evil in others, or the Bible is long overdue for a make over, as it is out of date with current society.
All of which is based on them being atheist.
It doesn’t matter that God is the object of discussion. So nothing about “God” is relevant.
That is atheism at it’s core.

 

You have a remarkable super power, Jan - the ability to mind read everyone...atheists, theists...as if beyond reproach. And who are you? The quintessential fence-sitter who feels well-versed in all beliefs ...and non-beliefs. Pascal had you in mind, when he made his wager.

 

You assume that mind reading is necessary, or you use the “mind-reading” analogy to switch and bait. Ratchet up the attack mentality so you avoid having to explain why you accuse me of hating women and girls.

 

She never did.

Lying about what she said just means no one will take you seriously at all.

 

As billvon states - never posted that you hate women and girls. Misogyny is also defined as a prejudice towards women, that is why I think you’re a misogynist, or at least post like one, here. I stand by that statement.

I’ve stated why I think this. But let’s try one more time - you are dismissive of women’s posts claiming we are emotional (therefore our points aren’t rational, your words not mine), you look down at raising kids (that’s women’s work, my words but that’s how you come across), you seem to think that a woman’s worth is the sum total of her body parts (go back to your “sex object” comment to me way in the beginning of this thread), you don’t seem to grasp that husbands can rape their wives (she should just comply) etc...

I could go on. Please stop asking why I think this - those are the reasons.

 

It's a fairly standard tactic: take an accusation (e.g. "mysogynist") and assume that the meaning intended is the one I have an easy rebuttal against (e.g. "one who hates women") rather than assume any other meaning (e.g. "one who is prejudicial against women"). Then the thread can be derailed by arguing strongly against the meaning I have a rebuttal against while (hopefully) deflecting away from any other meaning for which, presumably, I don't feel I have a defence against. Even when the intended meaning is detailed to me, I will continue to assume the meaning that I prefer it to be, the one I can argue against, rather than the one intended. That way I can simply go "show me why what I have written is so hateful of women" and avoid the actual accusation.

A further tactic is to dismiss arguments about God from anyone who doesn't believe in God simply because they don't believe in God. The "if you knew what you were talking about with regard God then you'd believe: but since you don't believe you can't know anything about God" routine.

Hey ho.
When you get bored, you can always just ignore him.

 

Yeah, that's the basic strawman fallacy.

"The Bible contains some examples of misogyny."
"Why do you claim that Christians hate women?"

 

There’s a sliver of me holding out hope that Jan isn’t doing this deliberately? lol

 

Unfortunately the kind of prejudice a misogynist has, is in line with the term “misogynist”. It is not as light as just being prejudice. She chose the word, so I take the accusation in the context of its meaning.

The word already comes with a meaning, and there’s no need to unpack it.

And because there is nothing that shows hatred of women, the tactic is to backpedal, and claim a lesser accusation, but still continue to use the unproven assumption to colour the narritive.

It’s not a tactic. It’s a preference.
And it’s not if you don’t believe in God, it is if you can’t bring yourself to include God. But not minding cherry picking verses out of context, to further your atheism. You quickly realise there two opposing world views, that are fundamental to our entire perception.

 

That's not what it means. It means hatred of, contempt for, OR prejudice against women. Several people have explained this to you. You've exhibited this prejudice several times, which is why what you post is misogynistic.

Exactly. It would behoove you to learn it.

 

Your explanation is misinformed.
Saying someone showed a lack of remorse for a particular situation does not mean that person is a psychopath, or has psychopathic tendencies.
A misogynist just doesn’t show contempt to a women, he shows consent to all women, because they are women. So his prejudice is different to someone who shows prejudice in certain things.
Wegs thinks I am prejudice to all women, because they are women. So she should back that statement as requested, or apologise.

Another unverified claim.
Unless talking about such issues is a misogynistic act.
You seem to think that because you make the claim, it is done and dusted, and you don’t have to give any reason.
Just posting quotes then saying this is why you discriminate against women/girls, period, is not an explanation, and refusing to give a reason for such a claim is dishonest.

 

I already know what it means, which is why I’m interested as to why I’m being labelled one

 

So you don't know what misogyny OR consent means.

For God's sake - words mean things. You can't just make up your own definitions to win arguments.

 

Another unverified claim.

misogyny - Those who looked up "misogyny" in Merriam-Webster's online dictionary would find a terse definition: "a hatred of women." Etymologically speaking, that is right on the money, as the word combines the Greek root for "woman" with the prefix "miso-" meaning "hatred" (also found in "misandry," a hatred of men, and " ...

Merriam Webster - misogyny - hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women

prejudice - If you have a negative attitude towards someone based on race or ethnicity rather than personal experience, you might be accused of prejudice.

Not even in the same ball park. And chose that definition specifically because it is more favourable to you misinformed understanding.

 

Are you seriously denying that you posted a few pages back that all women are emotional therefore irrational and that men who are emotional, act like women? Here’s a secret, Jan - that’s insulting and prejudice.

 

Yes.
I have been asking you to show where I said this.
I believe women tend to be more emotional than men, and I gave an example of what I mean. I did not say that women are emotion and therefore irrational, as you imply.
When men act emotional, they act like women, not like men, and I’m not talking about vulnerability, or crying. I’m talking about what it does their logic. Men are different to women, surely you can accept that. Their nature is different.
Look at the difference between your responses and the men’s responses. See how quickly it turns to attack mode. Not listening to both sides and give reasoned responses. It seems like all out war has broken out, and I am the enemy. Everything I say from here on out is to be regarded as misogynistic, or perverted. I have had a warning simply for asking for a proper explanation of the claim. That is totally irrational, because they are being emotional.